Ronhamprod

The Losers (2010)
Dir: Sylvain White
Stars: Idris Elba, Chris Evans, Harry Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana and Jason Patric

As the title of this entry “hints” at… I didn’t think it was possible for each and every one of my complaints with today’s movies to be demonstrated in one film, but in The Losers, they are.  In no particular order, here is the “issue” I have grown frustrated with and a (hopefully) brief clarification –

1) Great Cast with No Payoff – this, of course, is clearly my own fault.  I am a sucker, as I’ve mentioned in other posts, for a spectacular cast and oftentimes am voting “YEA” to the film before I even know what I’m getting into, just based on the mix of actors I enjoy watching.  With The Losers, they take a terribly gifted actor like Elba and squander his skills.  Ditto for Patric.

2) Overuse of Slow Motion – I’m not sure when music video direction entered the mainstream visuals of today’s movies, but I’m oh so tired of the “let’s show the team walking with their weapons in slow motion” shot – AND the “slow motion-FAST MOTION-back to slow motion” combination.  I guess a lot of today’s directors are either A) listening and obeying their superiors on the studio side that “this is a cool technique, kids love it, please use it” or B) are just repeating what they saw after countless viewings of the films of Sam Peckinpah & John Woo?  Either way, I have two words.  Over.  Used.  (See Note 1 for a special treat related to this comment…)

3) Establish (then RE-Establish for Those of Us Who’re Really Slow) that the Bad Guy is, well, a Bad Guy – we have Jason Patric as “Max” in this film.  He’s a bad guy.  You can tell by his white suit, the fact he works for the C.I.A. and his officiously delivered comments.  You can also tell when he orders his henchman to throw a businessman off a tall building.  That’s scene one with “Max”.  About ten minutes later, we get another scene – just in CASE you were grabbing popcorn at the time of scene one – in which he shoots an innocent girl for letting the sun get in his eye.  Literally.  I’m so glad the film makers have made clear that “Max” is bad.  Yep, “Max” is the bad guy.  Got it.  I was lost there for a while! 

4) Teeny Tiny Woman (Maybe 95 Pounds Soaking Wet) Capable of Beating the Balls off Superman – Let me give some examples here from recent “video content”… Sarah Connor Chronicles on TV, Drive Angry (in 3D!), which was in and out of the multiplex quicker than you can finish your Oscar ballot, almost all Bond movies, and now, The Losers.  The fight scene between Zoe Saldana and Harry Dean Morgan reminded me of all those Van Damme movies in which the hero takes a lead pipe to the skull repeatedly, but is still able to beat up the villain because he’s still so angry about the villain whacking his brother way back when (I’m in quite a mood today, huh?).

5) The Good Guy(s) Fail TOO HARD – In the first scene of The Losers, a helicopter full of kids – 25 to be exact – is shot out of the air with a missile.  This super-duper Special Forces team we’ve just met was supposed to save them.  That’s too bloody far!  It’s like when John McClane allows a plane full of people to blow up in Die Hard 2: how’s that POSSIBLE!?!?!?  The whole point to a guy like McClane is that he exists to PREVENT that kind of thing from happening!  Seriously, consider the difference in the two examples I just gave you – then think about how Dirty Harry fails against the Serpico killer during their first meet, or how Obi Wan Kenobi dies in Star Wars…  With the first scene of The Losers, I’m asking myself, if these guys can’t save the day, why is there a comic book written about them??? Why was there a movie made???

6) Comic Book Movies in General – no doubt, I knew this was within the genre, I knew what I was getting into… But are they all “produce-a-movie-immediately” worthy?  I think not.  I’m thinking of recently released Watchmen, Kick Ass and Jonah Hex…  Don’t ever see Watchmen.  Watch your third favorite movie again instead.

7) Machine Gun Fire Does No Good – I have to credit Roger Ebert with expanding on this frustration much better than I, but there’s a scene in The Losers when the team is trying to land a helicopter on a Miami city street to grab an armored truck (of COURSE they are).  During this attempt, the aforementioned henchman fires what looked to me to be .900 caliber rounds at the helicopter.  For several minutes.  It’s only after the team latches on to the truck and the helicopter is nearly out of sight that FOUR ROUNDS hit the helicopter.  I see.  What laws of physics are you following in this film?  If you’re trying to tell me the henchman’s a really bad shot… then how’d he become The Henchman???

8) The Band “Journey” on the Soundtrack – I suppose that’s more of a radio media/karaoke complaint, but COME ON!  Enough already.  Matter of fact, let’s add the Rolling Stones “Gimme Shelter” to this growing list of most overused songs in movies and see how long we can make it.  And I LOVE “Gimme Shelter”.

9) Quitting on a Scene – What I mean by this is there will be an extraordinary set up followed by some action and then mid-point, we’re at sunset, or back at the hotel, or it’s the next morning.  My question is, “how the hell’d they get OUT of that mess????”  For goodness sake, don’t tell me this facility “is the most closely guarded on the Eastern Seaboard”, the show me how you get in just to give me a shot of you holding [the diamond] inside the confines of the facility and grinning at each other!  How the hell’d you get OUT of there???  Did the security of the facility say, “Aw man!  Shucks!  Well, you already got it, so, ya beat us!  There’s the exit…” In the example of The Losers, the computer guy on the team steals this thing, some hard drive or whatever, and building security sends THREE GUYS to collect him.  Three security guards?  REALLY!?!?!

10) And Finally, One of the Good Guys was ACTUALLY a Bad Guy the Whole Time – well, shut the town down and paint me yellow or whatever the saying is.  In the instance of Serpico, that’s the whole story, that’s why we’re watching that film: so that’s superb.  In another example, like U.S. Marshalls (the sequel to The Fugitive), you can kinda see it coming, but this infestation of a Bad Guy in Good Guy’s clothing doesn’t ruin the film.  With this film, Indiana Jones 4, S.W.A.T., Avatar and Toy Story 3, I think it’s safe to say that the Good Guy who’s actually a Bad Guy is no longer a twist: it’s an expected storyline.

All of these ten (I had no plan for there to be ten, you must believe me) are symptoms of the same disease I’ll call “Under Scripting”.  Let me use just one example I’ve alluded to recently: what’s the difference between the original film, “The Matrix” and its sequels?  The original film is a classic, right, while the second and third films of that series are… not classics?  Why?  Because in the original “Matrix”, all of the un-real things that Neo does are explained and supported by the “rules” and establishing scenes of the script.  In the second and third films, we were just watching a video game.  They were “under scripted” (weak term, I know).

Note 1 – As promised, Good Guys Don\’t Look at Explosions

Note 2 – all apologies to those involved in making The Losers: I’m a pretty diplomatic guy, and I don’t want to come across too harshly on the film.  The movie had its moments, I was entertained by some scenes and frankly, I knew what I was getting into.  I don’t mean to sound like such a grumpy old man with this post by using The Losers as my super-example!

RED (2010)
Dir: Robert Schwentke
Stars: Bruce Willis, Mary Louise Parker, John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman & Helen Mirren

Sylvester Stallone had several big action movies in the 1980s: not exactly news, I know, but I say this to make a point.  I remember many of them starting off well, with a fun, establishing action scene, a love interest I could find interesting, too, and some bad guys worthy of getting pummeled by Stallone.  But then, well, things took a turn for the worst.  If the beginning scenes had established somewhat believable action, now in Act 3, we were into un-bee-LEEV-able action!  Why, you ask?  I don’t know!  If Stallone finally found the bad guy and had him in his grasp, he’d then murmur something – MUCH to my chagrin – like, “Naw.  You’re not worth the bullet.”  Or another of my favorite, “If I do this, I’ll be no better than you.”  Well, haw.  And not to pick on Stallone – there were plenty of other action icons with similar issues (anyone remember a certain Belgian named Van Damme, hmm?)

Long story short, RED, an action adventure from last fall, makes it very, very clear from the get go that this whole thing – the story, the romance, the action, all of it – is un-bee-LEEV-able!  So, either enjoy it, or don’t!  Actually, the “re-imagining” of The A-Team did the same thing last summer.  Both RED and The A-Team have opening scenes that show you this is a crazy, almost silly/cartoon action film.  If you’re into it, you’re going to have a swell time.

RED concerns a retired Bruce Willis, who still gets up early in the morning, still works out, but clearly has no interaction with the world except the soothing voice of his retirement fund’s customer service in Mary-Louise Parker.  He tells her his checks go missing on a monthly basis just to be able to chat with her.  It’s clear Willis likes talking to Parker (and who wouldn’t?) and she doesn’t seem to mind chatting with him either!  He’s well travlled: and it seems she desperately wants to travel.  When he tells her he’ll be in Kansas City later in the month, she surprisingly agrees he should call her when he arrives.  Aw!  Then, a team of black-ops/S.W.A.T. Team personnel shoot his house into swiss cheese.  No fooling!

Willis, of course, wipes out the S.W.A.T. Team of 10+ members and high tails it to Kansas City.  You see, as an ex-C.I.A. operative, he knows that the C.I.A.’s next move will be to wipe out anyone he’s talked to recently.  Three words: ruh roh, Parker!  Sure enough, we cut to Kansas City, from the beautiful Mary-Louise saying good-night to her latest travesty of a date (like I said, this is an unbelievable story!) only to find Willis, who she’s never met in the flesh, standing in her living room!

Off they go to New Orleans.  Then to New York.  After the Apple, let’s see my sheet her… I had to keep a list – oh!  To the Florida swamp, to Alabama… then Virginia!  And so on: in the course of these travels, Willis re-connects with other retirees like Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren.  Repective to the story being based on a graphic novel, these new characters entering the story from time to time really worked in its favor.  Of course, the inital bad guy (played effectively as ever by Karl Urban, who you may remember from Lord of the Rings and Bourne Supremacy) isn’t as bad as the REAL bad guy, played with a surprise by Richard Dreyfuss. 

As if you couldn’t tell, I highly recommend this one.  I keep thinking about why and I think it’s because the theme of the film is effectively communicated and subtly played on throughout: retirement can be a bitch…  Morgan Freeman’s character has one of the best lines in the film surrounding all of the black ops and terrible missions he was on in his career, and how they all rival his having to live at a retirement home!

And ya know?  Another thing – the fact that this script wasn’t considered more highly for a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar, instead of a certain animated film surrounding a toy box, well, it’s just too damned bad.

Cancer and Cake (2010)
Dir: Dan Pellar
Stars: Amanda Yachechak, Spencer Rhys Hughes, Julia Morgantini and Brian Gildea

http://cancerandcake.com/

So, last Saturday night I attended an L.A. premiere.  My pal Dan Pellar presented his short film, Cancer and Cake, in the swell surroundings of the Complex Theater in Hollywood.  As Dan put it before the presentation, the film concerns one of those many days and experiences in between a stage 4 cancer patient learning their situation and finally saying good bye to us all.  Having heard this synopsis, I was excited to see it because I think he’s pretty much right in what he said before the show: most films and TV episodes on the subject tend to focus on the breaking news of the illness and then the end, even the funeral (I’m thinking of Terms of Endearment type of films here).

Regardless, as with all great short films, Cancer and Cake has a simple (and in this case, endearing) message and communicates that theme in a most entertaining way.  You can probably tell I enjoyed myself with this screening; as if the show wasn’t enough, they had the composer perform three songs for us after the screening and even poured glasses of “Bobby Mondavi” wine (See Note 1) for us in the lobby before and after.  I hope you’ll please have a look at this film and let me know what you think: or better yet, use the Facebook & Twitter links on Dan’s site to tell HIM what you thought!  Have a swell weekend… and thanks for reading.

Note 1: I would never think of taking credit for referring to Robert Mondavi’s wines in this way – – consider this note full credit to Mr. Yatz Gundrum for this reference.

My suggestions for Academy Award fans -A Burke Commentary

I was reading these articles attached below from the L.A. Times and Entertainment Weekly regarding the ongoing rivalry between Harvey Weinstein and Scott Rudin.  If you take a moment to look up these two personalities on imdb, I think their filmographies will speak for themselves.  I bring this up because this year’s Oscar race has basically put The Social Network (Rudin’s production) vs. The King’s Speech (Weinstein’s film).  The two producers have been advertising and publicizing nonstop to get Academy decision makers to vote for THEIR film for “best in show”.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/02/01/kings-speech-social-network-oscar/   http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/30/entertainment/la-et-0130-oscar-moguls-20110130

So where does that leave us, the mere audience member?  Does that mean the other nominations don’t matter at all?  If one of these two films is going to win everything anyway, why watch the broadcast?  In fact, why make it a point to see any of the other movies at all?  I have several comments, in no particular order, which I hope will reset your attitudes if you decide to watch the Oscars this Sunday at 8pm (EST), hosted by James Franco and Mrs. Burke Marksity, Anne Hathaway.  Wait, what? 

First Rule of Thumb: There is no rhyme nor reason to who wins. 
Do I really need any support on this Rule?  Think about it!  We have Shakespeare in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture.  Every year there is some surprise, some shock, some inexplicable winner.  It’s just the way the Academy Awards work.

Second Rule of Thumb: If there is a reason someone wins, it’s usually political.
From Kramer vs. Kramer all the way back to Gentleman’s Agreement, the Academy has taken this once-a-year opportunity to share its politics via TV.   The industry takes the full opportunity that this annual forum allows it to proclaim what it feels is right and wrong to the world.  At least that’s one way to look at it.  Another is…

Third Rule of Thumb: It’s just an award show!  Enjoy the fashion and the song & dance numbers – and go to bed!
In other words, dear Reader, don’t let a picture or actor/actress winning a particular category ruin your weekend.  It’s just an awards show.  Agree with yourself that, “Hey, I’m going to listen to the opening monologue from Hathaway and Franco, see what they know and then flip around.”  Or start the show on an hour delay and fast forward through the commercials.  The attitude of just enjoying the show and not making it bigger than it is should prove to be awfully healthy!  Too many of my pals insist on this event being the “temperature of Hollywood”.  What the hell does that even mean?

Final Suggestion: Get yourself a nominations list, make your personal picks – and write in a few if you like – and then just enjoy the show.  When one of your picks doesn’t win, simply SHRUG.

My PICKS are as follows:
Best Actor: Colin Firth/King’s Speech
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale/The Fighter – – I saw all nominees this year, and I really enjoy this category generally… every year it’s got the roles that aren’t TRYING to win an award, they’re just great acting that kind of tip the balance of that film from a good film to a GREAT film.  Was particularly glad to see John Hawkes from Winter’s Bone recognized in this category.
Best Actress: Natalie Portman/Black Swan – – if Annette Benning upsets her I will be most upset myself.  Actually no – I’ll just SHRUG!
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo/The Fighter — that’s right, not Helena and not Hailee, I’m saying it.  I LOVED Leo in The Fighter, which brings me to why I voted for these four above: I was thinking about which of the five made me FEEL the most in each film.  This was another category where I actually saw all the nominees (that’s right, even Animal Kingdom – do yourself a favor and see that too): and Leo made me DETEST her character!  That’s a pretty strong emotion….
Best Animated Feature: Toy Story 3 – – I saw this last night and haven’t seen the others, which is why it’s getting my vote.  This third installment is a fine film, plenty entertaining and some parts had laugh out loud humor.  However…….. the fact that this film is allowed to be nominated TWICE for best picture is a crime.  Nothing against those involved in making Toy Story 3, but can you imagine if there was a 3-D Movie Category?  Avatar last year is nominated for best 3-D movie AND best picture?  There would have been riots in the streets!  OK, maybe not, but you see what I mean…  My feeling is if your film is nominated for best Animated Feature, then it forfeits the right for a Best Picture nod.
Best Art Direction: Inception (for me), Alice in Wonderland (to win) – – I pick Inception because I couldn’t tell which parts of this set WERE a set and which ones weren’t, which makes me pick this over Alice in Wonderland or Harry Potter or King’s Speech.  More importantly, the sets of Inception weren’t distracting from the film: I wasn’t looking for the fact or fiction in the design like I was while watching Wonderland.  All nominees – even True Grit – were deserving, but when you think about the “world” of the movie, that’s the Art Director/Set Designer’s job.  They answer the question, “What SHOULD this room look like?”, which is difficult to answer – particularly when you’re making that world from scratch.
Best Cinematography: Inception (for me and to win) – – this category concerns the photography of the film, the lighting, the lenses, the format, essentially the quality of the image you’re seeing.  Talk about another category with all worthy contenders (except maybe Social Network??? What about Unstoppable, Shutter Island, Green Zone, Harry Potter to name a few pictures I’d suggest just off the bat?), it’s a real challenge to capture an image with all the principals and all the props and sets just right – and make it artistic!
Best Costume Design: Alice in Wonderland (for me & to win) – – I mean, come on, did you see this film?  How would this film be as entertainingly effective as it was in “creating a world” withOUT those outrageous costumes?  In a way, for a movie like this, the costumes play as big a part as the actor’s portrayal of the character.  King’s Speech would be a close second to me in this category…
Best Director: Tom Hooper/King’s Speech (for me, [can’t vote C. Nolan since he wasn’t nominated] & to win) Let’s consider the director’s job.  Basically, communicate as best you can the spirit of the story and entire production to the actors, the cinematographer, the sound designer(s), the composer, the editor, the producer, the studio execs, the…  Based on the true story – that has been fictionalized as we well know by now – I feel Hooper did the best job of translating the story nominated to screen.  I would say Aronofsky is a very, very close second.
Best Documentary: Inside Job (to win) – – I haven’t seen any of these except portions of Exit Though the Gift Shop, which is one of the parts of grave controversy this year.  This film covers the true-life exploits of Bansky, a “street artist” (read: graffitti’er/tagger/anarchist) who said if he were to win, would show up in a monkey mask to accept the award.  Well, that’s just grand. 
Best Editing: Social Network (for me & to win) – – rumor has it that Black Swan is a shoe-in to win this, which I can’t believe.  If you caught Social Network, I hope you’ll agree with me that it completely deserves a win in this category: the story wasn’t told in flashback, it was told forward, backwards, in real time and sideways – and it still made sense!  Think about it: the storyline would cut from one deposition to the actual conversation as it took place back in 2003 – then cut BACK to another deposition… and again, the story still made sense.  FUN FACT: in Academy history, the winner of best editing 9/10 times is the winner of best picture. 
Best Foreign Film: Biutiful – – I don’t know why.  I haven’t seen any of these this year.
Best Makeup: The Wolfman – – really?  REALLY???  The fact that The Wolfman is going to get a win for anything isn’t the most disturbing part of this: Barney’s Version, a film about a wedding, gets an nomination, and Alice in Wonderland doesn’t????  What the hell’s going on here?  Oh wait – SHRUG.
Best Original Score: Inception, with Social Network a close second.  How King’s Speech got a nod in this category is confusing to me – I guess I assumed it was all existing classical music.
Best Music (Original Song): 127 Hours just because it’s not a country song (my own bias there).
Best Short Film (Animated): Day & Night
Best Short Film (Live Action): Na Wewe (Best film EVER – just kidding, didn’t see it)
Best Sound Editing: Inception
Best Sound Mix: Inception
Best Visual Effects: Inception – again, a very deserving crowd here because they all had “seamless” editing between what was shot in front of a screen and what was digitally edited in later, but as far as how distracting that entire process was to the story, I felt Inception’s presentation of the visual effects was minimal.  In other words, I wasn’t stopping after a scene to lean over to my pal and say, “what cool effects, huh?”
Best Adapted Screenplay: Social Network, which will win because Aaron Sorkin doesn’t have a statue yet.  And here’s ANOTHER reason Toy Story 3 is on my shit-list:
http://www.filmbuffonline.com/FBOLNewsreel/wordpress/2011/01/30/explaining-toy-story-3s-adapted-screenplay-oscar-nom/
Best Original Screenpaly: Um, hmmmmmmmmmmmm, gee, lemme see, uh, INCEPTION!?!?!?!?  I will not be able to shrug if this title loses for THIS category – Nolan & his brother spent over ten years on this script starting when they were making Memento back in 2000.  Just a fun fact.

And finally (drum roll) Best Picture = Inception (for me) – – Best Picture = King’s Speech (to win)

And now, I will explain to you why I think Inception is last year’s best picture.  I know many of you liked King’s Speech most, while others thought Social Network – and even Toy Story 3 – were best.  I haven’t heard too many say they thought The Kids Are All Right should be awarded Best Picture; but that’s my whole point I suppose, that the Oscars are a very subjective kind of show and award.

I think Inception deserves the Best Picture win because to me, movies are specifically all about telling stories visually.  If you haven’t seen Inception, please watch it: and even if you have, watch it again.  There is no conceivable way a book with Inception’s story would do that story justice.  Nor would a TV series.  Or a comic book.  Or a painting in a museum or a rousing radio show on NPR.  This story could ONLY be told as a feature film: it used visual elements (both photography and effects), sound design (editing, effects and the mix of the sound), the talents of the multi-cultural cast and all the other elements (production, editing, direction, musical score, etc) to make one fine, fine piece of entertainment.  I watched it last summer in the theater, and I’m not ashamed to say I saw it twice on DVD over the weekend: there were parts I had to rewind and watch again because they were that visually exciting to me (the hallway hotel battle, anyone?)

In the end, my point is that movies don’t exist to win awards: they exist to entertain us.  If you think you’ll be aggravated by “Hollywood’s Agenda” on Sunday, just skip the Oscars.  If you’re like me and you don’t mind watching and shrugging from time to time, I think we’re in for a hell of a good show this year!  Particularly with the future Mrs. hosting…

The Social Network (2010)
Dir: David Fincher
Stars: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Brenda Song and Justin Timberlake

Let me say up front that I liked this movie and I think it’s deserving of many of the accolades it’s been receiving lately.  I have another entry totally dedicated to “Awards Season”, which will be coming soon, so I’ll leave any comments related to that elelment of The Social Network for that post.  Let’s dive right into what exactly this movie is about.  For me, it’s about the oldest of human desires: invention, followed by fame, fortune and esteem!  However… it is also about another very old human experience: friendship followed by betrayal, emotional pain and loneliness.  If great movies are simply old stories with a fresh slant, The Social Network is a superb presentation of the theme, “it’s lonely at the top.”

As told by Aaron Sorkin’s script, Mark Zuckerberg was having a great big beer with a girl he was seeing.  The conversation – lightning fast as it was – went south and she ended their chat with something to the effect of, “Mark, the sad thing for you is that you’ll always think people don’t like you because you’re a computer geek: the truth is, they don’t like you because you’re an asshole.”  One of many quotable lines from this script, I might add: the point is that promptly following this insult from the girl, Zuckerberg – again, as told in this film – went back to his dorm, plopped down in front of his laptop, started chewing a dart and drinking beer and proceeded to make “Facemash”, a quick and easy program that took almost all the girls and boys in the Harvard dorms and compared them side by side for the end user to decide who was hot and who wasn’t.  The girl who insulted him was one of the pictures included, and she was not pleased with some of the things folks said about her online.

Trivial, adolescent, immature, perverse of the Zuckerberg character to post personal things about the girl online – maybe.  But this “Facemash” program was so successful so quickly that it crashed the Harvard servers and their I.T. folks had to shut down the whole schebang (I’m using made up words because I don’t follow each step of this process myself).  Regardless, we already have the making of a brilliant film: an Act One that introduces us to the “world” of the film, a character we’re interested in (albeit, maybe a little concerned about) and a prequel of sorts to the bigger thing that we know is coming, The [mighty] Facebook.  The construct and dialogue of the script has impressed not only me, but most everyone in Hollywood.  Acts Two and Three essentially unfold between the “past” of how exactly Facebook came to be and the the resulting courtrooms and depositions stemming from some of the original founders suing each other. 

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen Neil LaBute’s Your Friends & Neighbors or In the Company of Men, but I bring them up because they’re examples of films I would call “emotionally violent”.  The Social Network, in my opinion, is kind of emotionally violent, but not as severe as the LaBute films.  What I mean is that for me, it’s heartbreaking to see such great work as Facebook stem from a close relationship like the kind Zuckerberg had with his original CFO, Eduardo Saverin, only to see this friendship completely destroyed.  Maybe it’s just me, but former best friends now glaring at each other over a conference table during a deposition is awfully, awfully tragic. 

There’s an entirely different element to this film that struck me right after I watched it: there are “good guys” and “bad guys” in Sorkin’s story, and they kept switching sides on me!  What I mean is, Zuckerberg is right to a certain extent that from a business practices standpoint, he saw an idea and ran with it.  But then he’s got the black hat on when we come to find from another perspective that he was served up a good portion of that idea from another “party” – I sound like a bloody lawyer!  In other words, Zuckerberg wanted to change the way people interact with each other digitally, which is GREAT.  The fact he stole ideas (in Sorkin’s version…) to do so is AWFUL: furthermore, he never really seemed to see what the big deal was concerning stealing ideas!

Let’s flip this coin for a moment to look into another example of the “good guys” and “bad guys” making a switcheroo: the “party” I was alluding to earlier is a couple of twins (who row crew at HAH-vahd) and a business associate of theirs.  They claim it was their idea for a “Facebook”, which would be exclusive to the Harvard crowd – anyone with a Harvard.edu email address.  While I agree with them, that it seems Zuckerberg took their idea, held them off long enough to get the programming done, then took the whole thing for his own, my question is how much is enough?  The end credits say they settled with Zuckerberg’s company for $65 million dollars – and that they rowed for the U.S. Olympic team in Beijing.  Again, their point is correct, but I hate that these guys are in the right.

In the end, there were parts of this film that intimidated me, that made me feel as if the world’s getting ahead of me.  That’s the mark of a great movie – it makes you think about it after you’ve seen it, and it makes you feel a certain way… I’m just still trying to decide if I liked how this one made me feel!

Random Note 1: And one more thing: to me, it DOES NOT MATTER how much of this movie is true!  We seem to live in an age when moviegoing audiences LOVE to pick a movie apart, using, “Oh well, hell, it wasn’t even TRUE!” as part of their arguement.  To hell with you “it wasn’t even true” naysayers!  Do you really wanna watch a TRUE story, or do you want to be entertained by a story based on a fascinating true story?  I feel like people forget that the writer is trying to cram a whole lot into a two hour period (at most).

Thelma & Louise (1991)
Dir: Ridley Scott
Stars: Susan Sarandon, Geena Davis, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen and Brad Pitt

The tradition of the Bing Crosby & Bob Hope’s “road movies” all the way through more recent examples such as Midnight Run, Natural Born Killers and O Brother Where Art Thou, demand that certain elements be involved in the story.  There’s got to be a mode of transportation: Midnight Run and Planes, Trains and Automobiles both used more than one mode.  There should be characters that are interesting: with Natural Born Killers, the protaganists were interesting but atrocious.  In O Brother, they’re also interesting, but awful peculiar!  Sometimes there’s a “clock” involved, other times there are countless cameo appearances – it depends on the story, really.  With the movie I’m covering in this post, Thelma & Louise, the main characters are a couple of likable ladies from Arkansas, which makes the whole journey with them terribly fun!  I mean, they’re likable, which is good!!

The proof that this is a great story is in its would-be-simple log line: “a waitress and a housewife from Arkansas – both involved in “unfortuante” relationships – decide to hit he road for a girls trip, and experience much more adventure and surprise (about themselves, too) than they bargained for…”  Now, if I’m a studio exec in 1991 – or TODAY – I stop what I’m doing, hold my calls and listen for more.  Already my mind starts rolling: Sarandon and Davis were white-hot at the time.  Ridley Scott had already more than proven himself as an elite director.  The story delivered on the promise its log line made – it was adventurous, surprising and fun to watch.  It had great locations, spectacular character “arcs” (see below) and a swell supporting cast of characters for these two to interact with.  It even had tremendous lines!  Remember, “I don’t think he’s going to apologize…”

I had a couple of elements to the story I would’ve changed: I apologize to the writer and all involved, but I’m just blogging here!  My first change would be at the point in the story when Michael Madsen, who plays Louise’s (Sarandon) lover, comes to Oklahoma City to give her the $6,000.00 she has to her name, so she and Thelma can run and evade the cops a little better.  Not 10 hours after they have this $6,000 in their possession does Brad Pitt’s petty-thief character take it from Thelma!  I thought this was a weak story point after Louise had made such a huge deal about the money.  Was it that the film makers didn’t want to make Brad Pitt’s character too awful?  Was it to put another obstacle in the way?  Because I feel like there was a better way to do that: if Pitt had tried to get rough with Sarandon, if Madsen tried to take the money back, if the motel burned down… Again, I’m just blogging here.

The second item I would’ve liked to see changed was Harvey Keitel’s character.  Why wasn’t Ellen Burstyn or Kathy Bates cast in this role?  My point is, from one perspective, you could say this is a Woman vs. Man movie, and by putting a female character in this head-of-law-enforcement role, we would have someone of authority seeing the two ladies perspective.  I mean, poor Thelma is nearly raped, both the husband and boyfriend of these characters are awful, and ALL of the law enforcement folks after them are that awful brand of human, MEN (oooh, yuck!).  My point with making Keitel’s rather flat character a woman is that the ending would make more sense to me: there would be opportunities for Keitel’s character as a female to endure some of the abuse professionally that Thelma & Louise are experiencing at home and on the road.  As I say, just a blogger with an idea here!

After spending two paragraphs on what I’d like to have seen improved, I hope it’s clear how much I liked this movie: matter of fact, I loved it!  One thing I alluded to that supports this film’s text-book / classic status is what’s called the “character arc”.  Look at these two photos above: when Thelma and Lousie leave their suburb, they are dolled up, happy to be pals and endure their mundane lives of little daily excitement for weekends like this.  Now look at the next photo: by the end of this movie, these two characters are fed the f$#% up with their mundane existence, and they’ll be damned – be DAMNED – if they go back to it.  The fact that they made this change – and were STILL LIKABLE – is extremely difficult to pull off.  This kind of change in character is interesting to watch – and every wannabe screenwriter and studio exec is seeking this strong an arc.  Let me ask you: did you see this kind of change in Ben Stiller’s character at the movieplex this holiday season in “Fockers Part 3”?  Because if not, you might want to check out The King’s Speech for such an arc…

Random Note 1: I wonder if Madsen sold Quentin Tarantino on Keitel’s involvement in Reservoir Dogs – or was it vice versa – since they worked on this film together?  Or since they shared no scenes, was that collaboration completely random?

Random Note 2: I want to give a great accolade out to Stephen Tobolowsky, one of the many unsung and uber-talented “character actors” of today.  While he played one of the rather flat law enforcement types in this one, you will no doubt recognize him from Memento, The Insider, Sneakers, Groundhog Day and countless TV appearances (including one of my favorites, Deadwood).  I mean, look at this filmography!  http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0864997/

Random Note 3: Lotta random notes this time, I know – but I thought it worth mentioning that this was a title that my parents INSIST I wait to see: we were still in the “no rated R” movie zone at the time, and frankly, I’m glad I waited because I have seen quite a few of the “road movie” genre by now and this one definitely stood out!!

Brick (2005)
* Burke Favorite *
Dir: Rian Johnson
Stars: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Nora Zehetner, Matt O’Leary, Emilie de Ravin and Lukas Haas

For my 50th post, I decided to cover a film that I rather enjoy, but many of my readers seem to detest.  Let’s have a look at Brick, shall we?

Brick Movie Trailer

I saw this film in the theater because the preview convinced me this was a film for me: it had witty dialogue, it seemed like a pseudo-Private Eye story (note Capitalization), there were allusions to violent action, a very attractive love interest… I was hooked!  The viewing in the theater didn’t let me down, either: basically, I wanted to see it again as soon as I finished it.  And so, I caught it on DVD through Netflix and thought even higher of this film.  Over the years, I’ve seen it several more times, read up on the cast and crew, read reviews and discussed it with folks.  I think this is an appropriate “Burke Favorite” for my 50th entry because Brick represents what I like about film so much: it brings people together to discuss ideas and opinions, even if they really, really disagree with whether or not it was a good movie at all…

Pardon me – let me reset my focus here with a little simple Q&A.  What exactly is this picture about?  A “brick” of heroine that has gone missing from a drug kingpin’s stash in a Central California community: and the “Pin” suspects a cute girl named Emily, who’s new to the underworld, might have snagged it.  When this Emily turns up dead in a drainage ditch, her ex-boyfriend, Brendan, decides to investigate.  But, the first twist – if you want to call it that – is that these are all high school students or criminals in their late teens or early twenties.  I think this is the first brilliant part to Brick is that this setting seems to out of the ordinary for a ’30s/’40s tribute to hard-boiled private eye fiction.  I mean, do people actually talk like that anymore?  No!  But who knows what kids are saying these days, right?  Also, don’t some criminals come across as kids?  What I mean is, a drug pusher sounds like a child complaining sometimes because, “he was playing on my side of the playground!”  Or territory, turf, what have you… it’s just a thought.

So then, I think the story is engaging and entertaining: what about the technical aspects?  I thought for an independent feature, the production was very well done considering how the cinematography, editing, costumes – and particularly the music – helped form the story as a whole.  It was the “little things” too that had Brick firing on all cylinders: think of how usually the Detective in these stories always lights up a smoke or checks his pistol or adjusts his tie at the moment before he confronts someone.  In Brick, the hero Brendan will usually remove his glasses from his glasses case, which has a nifty little snapping sound when he shuts it.  And what about how the clues he sees along the way, from the arrow on the cigarette, to the symbol for the drainage tunnel?  I thought these kinds of twists and tributes to the traditional Detective/film-noir was pretty smart.

In the end, is this a brilliant, stop-the-presses kind of movie?  No, I admit that.  But if you like Detective fiction (try Mickey Spillane if you haven’t already), film-noir (try The Maltese Falcon for sure) and Indy cinema, I think you’d get a kick out of Brick.  And now, all you who disagree with me have an area to post your comments… here… to the bottom of this post…

I often get into conversations with folks about movies as you can imagine: one of my “go to” questions is, “how frequently do [they] go to the theater to see a movie?”  I ask this because  I feel like we all catch a lot more movies at home, either bits and pieces of our favorites as they air on cable, a good one from the past we saw and TIVO’ed or new ones that we grab from Redbox or Netflix.  But, the industry has always preferred folks to go see their stuff in the theater.  “See it on the big screen,” they say!  “You simply CAN’T MISS miss this one – in fact, you should see it opening night!!”

I saw a fascinating documentary series on TCM in the last two months of 2010 that gave a great presentation of how the movies came to be: getting butts in seats – and the subsequent challenges with this goal – was an overarching theme of the seven part series.  The movie “moguls” who ran the studios were always under pressure to put bodies in the theaters, and they adapted with stories that reflected cultural phenomenon (like The Depression, two World Wars), new technologies to stay current against the advent of radio and later T.V., and most of all, giving the audience more of what they wanted: beautiful stars, epic stories and every gimmick from 3-D to Cinemascope to “talkies” back in the day…

My point with all of this background – and I promise, I do have a point – is that most folks decide whether or not they’re going to see a film based on the initial preview of the film.  That said, I don’t know about you, but one of the ways you can absolutely PREVENT me from buying your product is by lying to me.  When was the last time you went to a movie and left saying, “this wasn’t close to the movie I thought I was going to see!”  It seems to me that there are good previews, and there are those that do a good job of blurring the truth: so let’s have a look at an unfortunate “peek” at a movie in the trailer to The Kids Are All Right, and another one that I think does a good job of communicating just what the heck you as an audience member are buying with your $9.00 ticket in The King’s Speech:

The Kids Are All Right – Trailer (iTunes)

(If you’re struggling to see this trailer here, try Yahoo/Movies as well…)

Now, what would you expect in The Kids Are All Right after seeing this preview?  I thought I was getting into a fun little modern day rom-com (romantic comedy) with bits of family drama peppered in.  What I got when I stuffed this DVD into my player on Sunday night was a heavy little family drama peppered with comedy and basted, slathered, drowned with tears of sorrow.  There is a lot – I repeat, a LOT – of crying in this film.  There’s a lot of really awkward and face-scrunch worthy scenes.  And for me at least, there were a lot of characters I couldn’t give a damn about.

Now let’s have a peek at The King’s Speech (look for a separate entry focusing exclusively on this film very shortly). 

The King’s Speech Trailer

I’m not sure about you, but this film’s preview seems very clear in its message.  There’s a problem: a very public, very royal figure literally cannot speak when he has to.  In fact, it’s awkward for everyone when he does speak!  There is a potential solution: a voice therapist with most unusual methods – and a commoner for the love of God – is available to help the King learn to speak, if only the King will trust him.  But there’s an even bigger problem: Hitler is coming to get them all!  Now the King REALLY needs to learn to speak and speak for an entire nation!!  I don’t know about you, but everything from the storyline to the costumes to the sets to the actors involved engaged me in this preview.  I knew I had to see this movie immediately after watching the preview.  But here’s the thing… I would respect anyone who said, “Not for me” after seeing this trailer too!  It’s not their type of picture, this historical story, costume-drama-period-piece type of thing… and that’s fine – but at least the preview communicated itself properly to all.

I would love anyone’s feedback on this subject, both the “great” trailers you’ve seen and the ones that lied to ya!

Auntie Mame (1958)
Dir: Morton DaCosta
Stars: Rosalind Russell, Roger Smith, Forrest Tucker and Peggy Cass

There are films that are driven by story.  There’s a bomb in a building and the characters involved have to get it out, or else!  Or there’s a war about to begin and there’s a lot of good-byes tearfully said before the obligatory violence is let loose on screen. Or, there’s a war that just ended and the boys are coming home – how will they be received?  Or there’s a boy and a girl and the boy falls in love with the girl before losing the girl… you get the idea.

There are other films that are much more character driven, as in, “How would James Bond react to an adventure… in Las Vegas!”  Or how about, “How would Indiana Jones behave differently if he had his own Father in tow on an adventure?”  Or, how would the title character in this film I watched over the weekend, Auntie Mame, react to just about any situation!

I really liked this movie for several reasons: first off, I saw it on TCM and they do a splendid job of presenting the picture as it should be – in wide, widescreen and in its full Technicolor radiance as I’m sure it was presented back in theaters in 1958.  The second thing I liked was the huge Warner Bros. emblem at the start of the picture, followed by a stab at the very studio later within the dialogue.  Of course, the third thing I liked was the primary shot of Auntie Mame: she’s got just about the most decorative Manhattan apartment you could imagine (for the time the film was shot), she’s having a rip-roaring party and doesn’t really care who attends – including her little nephew who’s been thrust into her life suddenly.  There are roles that I believe certain actors were simply meant to play: Connery as Bond, Janet Leigh in Psycho, Eastwood as Dirty Harry… you just can’t imagine anyone else embodying the role!  And Ms. Russell as Auntie Mame is another example of this theory.

From the opening act onward, the movie definitely had its moments.  I’m thinking of how Mame “survives” at a department store job over the Christmas holidays when all she can fill out is a receipt for COD.  Another scene that had me cracking up was the horse riding/”The Hunt” scene – and subsequent preparation for her side-saddle performance.  And particularly the way she would respond when anyone said something she didn’t care for…

I suppose another reason I got such a kick out of the movie is that it had been recommended to me by a pal who really, really likes it: I don’t know about you, but I feel like sharing films you love is like attending the game of your favorite team with a fellow fanatic, or sipping a fine red wine with a fellow connoisseur, or a book, mix tape (dating myself) and recipe.  You get the idea – it’s just fun to have someone else get a kick out of a movie you’ve been watching for many, many years!  Thanks for the recommendation, P.P.

The Bishop’s Wife (1947)
Dir: Henry Koster
Stars: Cary Grant, Loretta Young, David Niven and Monty Woolley

This title will be the third of four titles I’ll cover this holiday season in the spirit of Christmas: and a great title it is!  I was lucky enough to catch this on TCM: Robert Osbourne introduced the film and explained what immense detail the legendary producer Samuel Goldwyn injected into this project.  The Bishop’s house apparently didn’t look “Bishop-y” enough for Sam: so, he shut down production so he could have another one built right!  Three weeks into production, the film just didn’t have the pizzazz Goldwyn wanted: so, he sacked the director, hired Koster and went to work again!  No matter the cost, Goldwyn wanted this picture done properly – and the results reflect this attention to detail. 

For those who haven’t seen it, let me briefly review the storyline.  The Bishop, played with splendid “straight man” minimalism by David Niven, is in trouble.  He’s been appointed Bishop by political powers that be in the community.  The promotion means several things all at once: it means much less time with his lovely wife Julia (Loretta Young), no time for old friends like Professor Wutheridge (the incredibly gifted in voice, Monty Woolley) and by the way, he has to get construction on a new Cathedral underway just as soon as possible!  It’s a tough task, particularly with everyone’s pocketbooks strained as they are.  So, Bishop Henry Brougham (pronounced BROHM) does the right thing: he prays about it!  And here comes the fly in the soup, the stone in the shoe, the glitter on your hands from a Christmas card – Henry’s prayer is actually answered!  In the form of an angel – Cary Grant.

Halfway through the movie, you can kind of tell what ol’ Henry’s thinking: “Really, Lord?  I pray for help with a cathedral and you send Cary Grant to woo my wife while I slave away trying to get this monstrosity built!!??  What kind of answer to a prayer is that??”  But how relatable is this predicament that we find Henry in, hmm?  How many times have we wished and hoped for something that just didn’t come true?  Or we got what we hoped and wished for… but not in the WAY we were hoping to receive it?  I think this is part of why Bishop’s Wife works so well.  Cary Grant’s angel, aptly named Dudley, tells Henry, “You didn’t pray for the Cathedral to be built, you prayed for guidance.”  This line really rang true with me this year: what am I REALLY asking for?  What do I really NEED as oppose to WANT…  Well gee whiz, I don’t NEED anything, do I?  I was speaking for Henry, of course, not myself (or was I?)…

In short, this little movie leaves you with some pretty interesting questions to reflect upon: even the Professor in the film, who doesn’t celebrate Christmas, feels this time of year is particularly fit for introspection (is that a word?).  From the supporting characters like the Professor, Sylvester the cabbie and Mrs. Hamilton (the proverbial Scrooge of the film) to the mesmerizing performance from Cary Grant as Dudley the Angel, this holiday film is most entertaining in its presentation of these philosophical questions.  I hope you’re able to make time for this one during this holiday season.